[archevel]

That you hold a certain value is logically true as long as you actually hold that value. There is no belief necessary in that case. _Why_ you believe it, i.e. the justification for that belief would need to be empirically grounded if I understand the article correctly. That seems a tall order.

Further, isn't even the scientific method at its core also based on certain beliefs about the world for which there is no empirical basis? Not that that would make it any less valuable as a tool for understanding the world.

[rendall]

I suppose that I think of holding values and knowing facts to be non-overlapping magisteria (qv Gould). In a reasonable person, facts will inform values, but values don't need to be (and cannot always be) justified by facts. You and I may have the exactly the same set of facts and nevertheless draw different conclusions.

Belief in something as a fact, however, does need to be justified by evidence; especially where used to support values.

>> isn't even the scientific method at its core also based on certain beliefs about the world for which there is no empirical basis?

That's a good point. What do we accept as true, a priori, if we only believe that for which there is evidence? After all, while there is a philosophical basis for you to know that you exist, there is no philosophical basis for you to know as a fact that anything else besides you exists. It is a conundrum.

Still, I think we can still acknowledge uncertainty in our beliefs. "I will act in the belief that X is true even though I have incomplete certainty, but will update my behavior and beliefs given new evidence."